Can Natural Selection Produce Intelligent Design?

If the "species" by niche constructablity practice artifical selection they might but I dont see that there are any species other than man that can do artifical selection so I would have answered , "no" to the op. That was too easy for me so I refrained for this long from answering that.

I always was under the impression that that would be evidence of selection in nature, or natural selection just as i would say that evolution can plainly EXPLAIN symmetry even if it is not all of the answer. The actions of the organisms depends on whether it is an average or an individual thing and the whole group selection gets raised if one insists that say plant-insect interactions are selective just because alleles are sorted but if that is the case I cant understand why Darwin would have spent so much time with agricultural data to build a case for common ancestry. If instead there is a verifiable Mathusian influence it is important to found the place where this selection occurs is too small for the groups being selected. Artifical selection enables the motion around alleles that natural selection can not "force". So likewise I dont understand why iano thinks that evolution cant explain symmetry by NATURAL SELECTION of alternative alleles while artifical selection of the alleles by directing against forces otherwise present might better exclaim the SAME symmetry. I dont consider the animals you named as symmetric as this period of possible non-phlyetic life.Is that any better?

If one thinks like Gould did on humans which had that there was no phenotypic change in the past 10,000 yrs and one still thought that Lamarkianism and Darwinism were absolutely more than pedagogically different & one thought that Waddington contributed something ulitmately to a better Neo-Darwinism then Nooooo, it does not matter what two species you might have spoke of or I did approximately. I however recognize Croizatism if that was the genomics that MUST link with any phenotype. A possible definition of an adaptive unit by anykind of group however is not something that I consider all Lamarkianism to realize, whether in culture or any amphibian etc. That is my position. Parasominum must realize that there is no parsing at this period unless the causal structure under test is already given. Para did not give it nor took it. You can stare. There is nothing wrong with that. Soooo,

quote:

---

The contest was decisively won by natural selection, in my opinion, when in 1932 the classic works of Fisher, Haldane, and Wright had been published. Yet even though this theory may now reign supreme, its realism still supports much opposition, perhaps more than is generally realized. Many recent discussion seem on the surface to conform to the modern Darwinian tradition, but on careful analysis they are found to imply something rather different. I believe that modern opposition, both overt and cryptic, to natural selection, still derives from the same sources that led to the now discredited theories of the nineteenth century. The opposition arises, as Darwin himself observed, not from what reason dictates but from what the imagination can accept. It is difficult for many people to imagine that an individual’s role in evolution is entirely contained in its contribution to vital statistics.

---

Williams Adaptation and Natural Selection 1966and what Waddington said.

quote:

---

This Neo-Darwinist view of the basic nature of life is the dominant one at the present time. It is this view most generally discussed by the people interested in scientific theory, most of whom approach the subject primarily from the side of physics. In my opinion, however, it is inadequate in several ways, and I should like to discuss some of theseThis strict Neo-Darwinism does not involve any necessity to refer to the phenotype.These interactions constitute the process of natural selection.

---

The paradigm for the Evolutionary Process p 37 in Population Biology and Evolution 1968 Syracuse Uni Press.I think Waddington’s thought constricts thought in evolutionary theory rather than expands it. I think we can use our brain on evolution without language. But that is just me. So I find Gould’s reference to Maclean’s notion of the reptile brain a little depauperate at best. There is a huge difference between baraminology and orthogenesis. Gould knew that. I can not accept DS Wilson’s imagination about Calvin while I can agree with Gingerich that Cornell’s AD WHITE did not create phd’s as Kant said the regimen retains. It seems possible to me that discernable threads on biology and physics can become irrepariable entangled on EVC before some religious thread completely interdicts the diction in a science one. That however would be found by judgement not decision as is technically possible. Gould didn’t think that other primates abstract. Mendel vs Darwin occurred in the 80s. I am past that.Shipley had

quote:

---

Nested models and multilevel models page 199

​

Like successful politicians, good stastical models must be able to lie without getting caught. For instance, no series of observations from nature are really normally distributed. The normal distribution is just a useful abstraction — a myth that makes life bearable. In construction statistical models we pretend

---

Cause and Correlation in BiologyIf you get to this bottom of the brook kind of line please wait until I review this book or give indication of the math that binds it up purely else all is only about how evolution is taught not what it is when biology is not evolution. The model comes from the vital statistics. This does not mean that the two model approach to origins is within this statistic. It could be.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-17-2005 11:40 AM

No, it does not mean that we would "have" to know how to build"" human-like intelligence. I will be probably trying to open a new topic, the first I have ever proposed in the new evc system, to show how to draw the difference of C4 and C3 as BOTH in mediated baraminological design & evolutionary fitness plants through Shipley's relation of econometrics to biology. This should dictate to you that covariance and latent variables OUTSIDE of Bertrand Russel's solution of a contradiction that any contradictory STRUCUTURES (not statements) is all that is LOGICALLY needed where you have elsewhere on EVC posted issues relative to self-reference. This diagram will enable the person able to abstract to notice how man and nature differ in the shape BUT NOT THE FORM of the changing over time blueprint. This IS NOT the same thing as developmental constraints in evolutionary theory. I will discuss that. I am not going to bet on this one. I am going to DO it.If you still have issues about not thinking that my sentences "make sense" please DOo wait. I just wanted Imrenalut to know that being overwhelmed with secularism is not reason to doubt.

I do not "chat" on-line.It takes too much time to respond to everything at your high level of intelligence. Not every one here provokes my deepest considerations. I can not shape every one of my responses to your interest though.I am on a public system just now and do not have a lot of time.Shipley's book describes path analysis in terms of plants different by C3 and C4 chemistry. Mediated design is proposed by baraminiologists IN THE SAME PLANT(s). I will show a design of causal structure in the future for BOTH investigative approaches GIVEN my attempt to relate lenticel formation to dielectrics (search EVC).Again I dont have time to chat, so pleas dont make me raise my voice and say, "Speak for your-self". There is indeed some discussion of the content in my posts here but I use my mind and not the screen to link the thoughts I read and write in context. The context may not be yours. That is fair.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-19-2005 11:08 AM

Good.I feel better.We can surely find some common ground other than me saying that focusing properly is all that is involved. It is not. You need the strucutre that is it outside of Russel's perception of contradiction. I hope I can produce it. I do not have that kind of time right now. Take Care.

Yes, yes yes...
I know you were only trying to get more from me directly. You cut into words as well if not better than anyone else here so there is no need to add the warm feelings. I have not known myself to quit any on-line discussion. There is always an occassion for a first. We have past that. Good.And because of your last post which reassured me I went looking for Kant's book on "mere religion". I did not find it but I found his 1800 lecture notes on logic. Biology is lacking a proper organon but evolution need not have that. You and I seem to disagree about the Canon of the lacking organon. Instead biology gained a well philosophically defended organacism. The organon is needed before scientific creationism can marshal the aquaitance say with ID that some posters here represent or at least present. I would prefer to work at issues relative to the LOGIC suffiently to bring this about than discurse about what one might do if the instruction were already presented. Cardinal and ordinal numbers are abstracted. Form-making and translation in space needs an applied transfinite instantiation. I know of no one but me that thinks this way today.================so ignore the below if you choose for now=======
We both and all here on evc have seen that it(that) has not been. I assert only that the division of logic that Russell contained in his version of the history of logic and Kant taught divided between dialectic&analytic(hence Hegel/Marx wrongly deconstucted etc) is %not% in this history of symbolic logic BECAUSE in my opinion the word "tissue" is at contradiction with the word "organon" (in some writings to be) and IS at issue in c/e when not also eVc just as the word "stem" gave the word "Cell" a term it did not otherwise posses. The use of econometrics to path analysis shows things that ARE NOT TERMS. The subjective specialists in biology write professionally in terms but can think in a different "frame of mind." The equal sign is a "translation" between an associated casual strucutre and classes of probabilites in the organon. I had not known this in high school algebra class. I do not know if ID survives this curriculum as soon as someother than me puts a machine to it.Kant's Introduction to Logic and His Essay on the Mistaken Subtility of the four figures translated by Abbot 1963p3

quote:

---

Since Logic is a science which refers to all thought, without regard to objects which are the matter of thought, it must therefore be viewed-
1. as the basis of all other sciences, and the propaedeutic of all employment of the understanding. But just because it abstracts altogether from objects -
2. it cannot be an organon of the sciences.

​

By an organon we mean an instruction how some particular branchof knowledge is to be attained. This requires that I already know the object of this knoweldge which is to be produced by certain rules. An organon of the sciences is therefore not a mere logic, since it presupposes the accurate knowledge of the objects and sources of the sciences. (172) For example, mathematics is an excellant organon, being a science which contains the principles of extension of our knowledge in respect of a special use of reason. Logic, on the contrary, being the general propaedeutic of every use of the understanding and of the reason, cannot meddle with the sciences, and anticipate their matter, and is therefore only a universal Art of Reason (Canonica Epicuri), the Art of making any branch of knowledge accord with the form of understanding. Only so far can it be called an organon, one which serves not for the enlargement, but only for the criticism and correctionof our knowledge.

​

3. Since Logic is a science of the necessary laws of thought, wihtout which no employment of the understanding and the reason takes place, which consequently are the conditions under which alone the understanding can and should be consistent with itself - the necessary laws and conditions of its right use - Logic is therefore a Cannon.

---

Creationists can not anticipate what we write but they might matter it out right in front of your eyes. We have been confusing the lack of evidence for creation science with the likely enlargement of an organon teachers lack by over teaching evolution without this level of logic needed to even script the crypt of the thought itself. Me being graded OUT of Cornell( from striaght A's when aping pedagogy to F's when I wrote like I do here on EvC) shows that higher .edu has not been able to teach nor correct this as you have me. Thanks.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-19-2005 03:30 PM

I am acquainted with Russell’s

quote:

---

The subject of denoting is of very great importance, not only in logic and mathematics, but also in theory of knowledge. For example, we know that the centre of mass of the solar system at a definite instant is some definite point, which is only known to us by description. The distinction between acquaintance andknowledge about is the distinction between things we have presentations of, and the things we only reach by means of denoting phrases. It often happens that we now that a certain phrase denotes unambiguously, although we have no acquaintance with what it denotes; this occurs in the above case of the centre of mass. In perception we have acquaintance with the objects of perception, and in thought we have acquaintance with objects of more abstract logical character; but we don’t necessarily have acquaintance with the objects denoted by phrases composed of words with whose meaings we are acquainted. To take a very important instance: there seems no reason to believe that we are ever acquainted with other people’s minds, seeing that these are not directly perceived; hence what we know about them is obtained through denoting. All thinking has to start from acquaintance; but it succeeds in thinking about many things with which we have no acquaintance.

---

p43 Bertand Russel Logic and Knowledge Essay 1901-1950Putnam Sonsas being on target with Kant’s Conflict of Faculties page69

quote:

---

For practical purposes we can be quite indifferent as to whether we shall live as pure spirits after death or whether our personal identity in the next world requires the same matter that how forms our body, so that our soul is not a distinct substance and our body must be restored to life. For who is so fond of his body that he would want to drag it around with him for eternity, if he can get along without it? So the apostle’s conclusion: If Christ had not risen (if his body had not come to life), neither would we rise again (we would not continue to live after death) Is not valid. But it may not be a conclusion (for one does not argue on the basis of an inspiration); he may have meant only that we have reason to believe Christ is still alive and that our faith would be in vain if even so perfect a man did not continue to live after (bodily) death. This belief, which reason suggested to him (as to all men), moved him to historical belief in a public event, which he accepted in good faith as true and used as a basis of proof for moral belief in a future life, failing to realize that, apart from his moral belief, he himself would have found it hard to credit this tale.

---

but Wilson escapes the same connotation with an appeal to legislative authority with

quote:

---

Major Transitions of Life The trait-group concept conflicts with the image of an organism as a unit that is adaptive with respect to many traits. After all, an individual organism like a bird eats as a unit, flies as a unit, fights as a unit, and so on. Some animal groups such as social insects colonies are integrated with respect to many traits. Similarly, some human groups organize the lives of their members from cradle to grave. In many other cases, however, groups are adaptive only with respect to one or a few traits. When I use the term organismic in connection with groups, it will be synonymous with adaptive at the group level and will refer to particular traits and the appropriate groupings for those traits, while remaining agnostic about other traits and groupings ^8. The fact that people often participate in many groupings whose adaptiveness must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis will become clear in subsequent chapters.

---

p17 The View From Evolutionary Biology in Darwin’s CathedralKant shewed in Russell's physicality that pictoral based languages AND Aristotelian naming necessity at best provided a UNIT to the organon but Wilson attempts to preview this view a posteriori. The image of the organization would have to be a synthetic a pirori and thus not yet part of symbolic logic IF that viewpoint of the dead body as a mass exists. We are all free to take that however we want in the material of the debate but there are some illegalites on its form, but the fountain with flame comming out of it kitty corner to the bus station in Downtown Greenville is not one of them.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-19-2005 07:41 PM